Ohita navigointi
To the thl.fi front page

Human Impact Assessment

Muurame: Alternative ways to provide day-centre activities for substance abusers - HuIA summary table

Back to the assessment process

AIMS/
IMPACTS

ALTERNATIVE 1

Activities to be continued as they are; an agreement on carrying out the activities on a permanent basis (3-5 yrs)

ALTERNATIVE 2

Activities to be discontinued on 31 Dec 2007 at the latest

ALTERNATIVE 3

Activities to be made part of the municipality's activities; the flea market to be closed (a separate agreement), ½ of the worker's work contribution

ALTERNATIVE 4

A sub-regional model

All services of the Street Mission available sub-regionally

No service units in Muurame.
Prevention of social exclusion aimed at

Good examples of prevention of exclusion can be given

Some ten persons try to stay sober with current services

Some case management

A side product: social control in a positive sense

No support to those trying to stay sober?

Clients seek other services: social work, health centre, parish, etc.

Increasing social assistance expenditure - an indirect impact

No major changes

Share of voluntary work will decrease

More expensive to the municipality?

Skills in substance abuse prevention need to be acquired somehow (subsidised employment, training)

The best way to prevent social exclusion

How can the services be provided in the municipality's remoter areas?

Would the Street Mission buy Kettula?

Fails to reach a major part of current clients
Peer support to clients

The only form of self-help available to substance abusers

Support from the group and a permanent worker important (not mere meals)
Abandonment of clients to their own devices?

Is the municipality able to replace the support offered by voluntary workers?

Who would be responsible for the activities?
If the services are provided in Jyväskylä only, should one go that far to get them?
Establishing a co-operative network, co-operation

Street Mission's long tradition and special skills

Club and other activities by the parish provide support

Co-operation between the parish and municipality are of key importance

Other group activities and remaining networks are of vital importance

Role of the parish increasingly important, but no resources for extensive activities

Closer co-operation with the "authority network" and less close contacts with voluntary workers

Will the "authority approach" be excessive?

The municipality has functioning local networks

Centralisation of activities would weaken local networks

New approaches possible: e.g. social house management (special support, tailored practices)
Quality and role of substance abuse prevention

Fails to reach all client groups (such as young people, young adults, people at work)

Not too effective as a preventive service

Problems in contacts between authorities?
Will be reduced from little to non-existent

Closer to the processes, targets and strategies of municipal administration

Prevention not too effective

Workshop activities remain in place but the municipality's role increases

Easier to train workers

Fails to reach all current clients

More possibilities but does not necessarily guarantee the implementation of substance abuse prevention

More "carrots" on offer

A higher level of competence among workers

Substance-free service units, low-threshold services, vocational rehabilitation etc.
Health impacts Positive impacts on physical health (outdoor activities, mobilising, meals) and mental health (meeting other people etc.) Negative impacts on physical and mental health (see alternative 1) Positive impacts on physical health (outdoor activities, mobilising, meals) and mental health (meeting other people etc.)

If the client moves to Jyväskylä: health impacts as specified under alternatives 1 and 3

Better availability of specialised health services in Jyväskylä

Mental health may deteriorate when the immediate network is reduced

Cost effects

Rather expensive for the municipality, assessment of outcome nearly impossible

Support needed from all actors, especially the parish and the municipality

Municipality will save €30 000/year (cf. 1 x a 6-month period of institutional rehabilitation) in the short term

In the long term, costs are likely to increase if these services are not replaced with other services

Municipality's expenditure on renovating Kettula will increase

Closer co-operation with health services - more effective prevention of health problems with a decrease in costs (NB costs of specialised health care)

Potential impact: a decrease in claims for social assistance

Food aid???

Clients' travel expenses increase

Centralisation of services reduces the price of "care day"

Distribution of food in Muurame - a potential impact: a decrease in claims for social assistance???

Print | E-mail this page

Published 7.11.2007, Updated 8.11.2007

Last updated 8.11.2007
© THL, 2009 | About the site | Web Publishing Team
National Institute for Health and Welfare - P.O. Box 30, FI-00271 Helsinki, Finland - Map- Tel. +358 20 610 6000, Fax +358 9 761 307, E-mail firstname.lastname@thl.fi